3 Policies That Are More Racist Than Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy


Racist rants by federal lands moocher Cliven Bundy and vile comments attributed to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling have put old-school racism back in the news.

But let's get real. However contemptible, Bundy and Sterling aren't what's holding down blacks and other minorities in today's America.

Here are three policies that, whatever their original intentions, systematically screw over poor blacks and other minorities.

They include:

courtesy IJ

1. Barriers to work.

Whether it's absurd licensing laws for at-home hair braiders, day care operators, and other small-time entrepreneurs or minimum wage laws that price young, unskilled black kids out of their first jobs, barriers to the labor market take their biggest toll on those with the least education, skills, and professional connections.

2. The Drug War

Created amidst fears of cocaine-snorting negroes, opium-smoking Chinese, and pot-puffing Mexicans, the drug war not only locks up black and minorities in vastly unfair and unjustifiable numbers, it also concentrates black-market violence in poor urban neighborhoods. Blacks don't use drugs more than whites—they just pay a much steeper price.

3. The Education Monopoly

Despite more than doubling real per-pupil expenditures since the early 1970s, America's graduating high school seniors have shown no meaningul improvements in math, reading, and science. It's black and Hispanic kids in inner cities whose parents lack any real choice in schools that suffer the most. And yet politicans, teachers, and parents who can afford to exercise choice for their own kids do everything they can to keep poor kids trapped in failing schools.

At a combined 140 years old, Bundy and Sterling are survivors from an older, uglier America that died well before the election of Barack Obama.

They can (and should) go fuck themselves, but if the rest of us actually want to address the sort of racism that is screwing over today's minorities, we'd do well to bust down barriers to work, end the drug war, and tear apart the school monopoly.

About 2 minutes. Written and hosted by Nick Gillespie and produced by Meredith Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new videos go live. 

NEXT: FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe: Libertarians Should Take Over the GOP

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Banned for life and a $2.5 million fine for a private phone conversation?

    I cannot possibly see any unintended consequences from this.

    1. They can (and should) go fuck themselves, but if the rest of us actually want to address the sort of racism that is screwing over today's minorities, we'd do well to bust down barriers to work, end the drug war, and tear apart the school monopoly.

      Stay classy Reason!

      1. Because Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling are the epitomy of class?

        1. Because the price of Chinese tea is rising?

        2. Can I expect you to call out everyone who uses the term "teabagger"?

    2. It is terrible that someone can be stripped of owning a business for being an asshole in private.

      1. His thoughts are unmutual.

      2. As long as it is valid under the agreement between him and the NBA, I don't see what the problem is. The NBA is making a business decision, Sterling is a drag on the league, and if they can legally pressure him into selling, they will.

        1. It's no different than an engineer be fired from a good job because his ex-wife disclosed something nasty he said in the privacy of his own bedroom.

          It may or may not be totally legal, but it is still bullshit.

          1. But a janitor being fired because his boss decided he wanted to fire him and no other reason = freedom!

            1. Pure freedom of contract does indeed = freedom!

              You, of course, aren't the least bit capable of proving the case is otherwise.

              1. Argue with kinnath, he's the one who thinks it's bullshit for people to get fired for the wrong reasons even when totally legal.

                1. This isn't about being fired. This guy OWNS the business. Different rights are at stake.

                  1. Owners get rights. Workers get whatever the fuck owners say they get. Freedom.

                    1. Yes, that's what happens when one person owns something, and another person uses it. It's no different than if you borrow my chainsaw. I can get that saw back from you at any time for any reason, because it's mine. You can't just sneak into my shed at night and steal my chainsaw.

                      Ownership, a concept that is supposed to develop in the human brain shortly after object permanence.

                    2. Workers are also free to leave jobs of their own accord, Tony. They are also free to become owners.

                    3. No, workers get whatever they contracted to get. As though someone could go work at Walmart and then their boss decides to pay them off with a bag of oranges. Everyone already knows what they are going to be paid when they go to work.

                    4. I suppose you are in favor of the workers over the owners? Idiot.

                  2. He doesn't own just any business. His organization is part of the NBA, and the NBA's actions are within their rights. No one forced Sterling to buy the Clippers.

            2. Freedom can be bullshit, Tony. Because you don't own everything, you are free to vehemently disagree with the decisions made by owners of businesses, but you are not free to coerce those owners into acting as you would like.

              1. Depends on what specifically they're doing. Nobody has absolute freedom. If the owners are polluting my water supply, I have every right to have the government coerce them into other behavior. On the other hand, some of us even believe the lowly serfs mopping the floors of their businesses should have some rights.

                1. I was unaware that any of us here advocated for slavery Tony.

                  1. So what rights should the worker have, qua worker? The right to quit and not be assaulted? That about run the gamut?

                    1. I guess you need to be reminded that all rights are negative liberties.

                      There is no such thing as affirmative rights.

                    2. The right to not be coerced against, the same as everyone else. And not your definition where anything the owner does that you don't like = coercion. France uses your model, and guess what Tony? When you make it exceedingly difficult to fire someone, businesses are a lot more reluctant to hire them. Why aren't you supporting the rights of those workers?

                    3. I don't mind a tougher job market as a result of worker protections if there is a social safety net to take care of the unemployed. In fact, I prefer that to the more Darwinian model advocated by libertarians.

                    4. you're ok with a system that drives people from work to welfare, as long as there's a safety net keeping them at subsistence level?

                  2. Only Tony advocates for slavery.

            3. A sports team owner being banned for life because of private comments he made in his home.
              "This is legal, but it's total bullshit."

              A janitor being fired because his boss decided he wanted to fire him and no other reason.
              "This is total bullshit, but it's legal."

              There is no hypocrisy here. Libertarians have always said that while free market "discrimination" should be legal, we would be the first ones to come to their defense. And that is the case here. The only ones gloating over getting people fired are liberals.

            4. Maybe you can get Soros and his ilk to fund some non-coercive safety nets.

              Then if you like your social safety net, you can keep your social safety net. Period.

              1. I'll do that when you get with the Kochs and crowd-fund their limited liability, law and order, property rights protections, and everything else you're just fine with charging me for.

          2. That's up to the owner/management of that company to decide.

            However, I disagree with the analogy. Presumably, the words of the engineer in your example aren't going to have much, if any, impact on the business. Sterling is the owner of a franchise in on of the most popular sports leagues in the US. 75% of the players, and many of the coaches in fans of this league are black. Him saying racist stuff (especially given his past history) is bad PR for the NBA, and it negatively impacts both the Clippers franchise and the NBA. Doc Rivers reportedly will not come back if Sterling doesn't sell the team. I doubt very many good free agents are going to be willing to come to the Clippers in light of this. The NBA is doing what they feel is best for the league, and it's hard to disagree with that from a business standpoint.

            1. *one

            2. "Him saying racist stuff (especially given his past history) is bad PR for the NBA,"

              The NBA can certainly do what it wants, and it's understandable that they would be more sensitive to racism than most other organizations. Or at least racism specifically directed at blacks. If Sterling had been complaining about his girlfriend hanging out with Asians or Hispanics, the NBA wouldn't care nearly as much.

            3. Calidissident

              "Him saying racist stuff (especially given his past history) is bad PR for the NBA, and it negatively impacts both the Clippers franchise and the NBA."

              And how has the publicity hurt the NBA or the Clippers ?

              The NBA and the Clippers are getting more pub than they have since one of those black players attacked a fan in the stands.

              I've heard on sports radio that tickets are selling for way more than usual for tonights game.

              The Kardashians, Hiltons, and Miley Cyrus prove that no publicity is bad for celebrities.

              No one holds the players or the team responsible for the owner.

              How have they been hurt ?

      3. A sport league is a private organization that affiliates with private owned teams. It is a complex relationship, but it is through voluntary contract.

      4. Why is it terrible? It's the NBA, not the government, fining him and trying to force him to sell, for which he will still keep any proceeds. He owns a very public-facing business, and is a representative of his business. The system worked here.

        1. Libertarians have to stick up for the billionaires, because who else will?

          1. Uh, did you even read the post? Saying it is ok for the league to stick it to him is sticking up for him.....how?
            I know, feeding the troll.

            1. I think he's referring to the person Brandon responded to. Still typical garbage from Tony.

              1. Actually, he is right. Libertarians do have to stick up for billionaires, because they are human beings that have the same rights as everyone else.

          2. If we don't stick up for billionaires, Obama will. You know, like sending them billions more in green energy subsidies.

        2. Why is it terrible? Because he was talking to his mistress in private about something that is no ones business--that WAS NOT racist. (I really don't know where ANY of you see racism in saying 'sure, go fuck black guys, just don't publicize it')

          What will you do when it just some guy who says something stupid at a party at his house? Or says something outrageous to a friend?

          Where does this shit end?

          1. When it doesn't matter to the bottom line of a business.

            1. Tony|4.29.14 @ 4:29PM|#

              When it doesn't matter to the bottom line of a business."

              This doesn't seem to be hurting the Clippers or the NBA ( which is a non profit, not a business).

          2. That's an inaccurate tl;dr of the conversation. He explicitly told her not to bring black people (not even black guys) to the game. And if you have a problem with someone associating with black guys, but not white guys, then you are racist.

            1. If a black hockey team owner said to his mixed-race mistress "Hey, can't you associate with more black people and fewer whites, especially that Gretzy guy?" would that still be unacceptably racist? Or would he just be keeping it real, being proud of his blackness, etc?

              Sterling didn't suggest anyone commit any actual acts of discrimination. I think it's problematic to say preferring to associate with people of a certain race is unacceptably racist when most people clearly do prefer to associate with their own race -- that's why there are racially segregated neighborhoods. So is everyone who does that racist?

            2. No, it's not.

              His mistress was screwing black guys. He asked her to not advertise it, don't tweet it, don't instagram it, don't bring them to games--not even famous ones.

              He didn't tell her to stop.

              I'm real sorry you have bought into the idea that this was some blanket condemnation of black people. It wasn't.

              He has sex with black people. He was about to get an award from the NAACP--do you think they just asked him to pull off his hood before they did this?

              The man isn't a racist. He's inadequate and doesn't want it trumpeted.

          3. And when it became public knowledge, it became the NBA's business.

      5. Or public for that matter.

        It's not yet against the law to be an asshole.

    3. It's a little frightening to me that personal opinions and private behavior that doesn't march in lockstep with the preferences of the "tolerant classes" are now being used to determine people's careers. I don't think I want to live in a world where a racist joke I told ten years ago is the reason I lose my job as a web developer now.

      1. This was a bit more than a racist joke (especially coming from Sterling), and presumably, the words of a web developer probably don't impact your company as much as Donald Sterling's words affect the NBA.

      2. This is not determining anyone's career. Sterling chose to own an NBA team, and he has made millions if not billions in profits from owning the team. That reward comes with substantial risks, one of which is the risk of alienating the ticket-buying public by having your cartoonishly dickish behavior come to light. Get over it. Sterling is not a victim.

      3. It has always been possible - even easy - to be sovially ostracised and lose business relationships by running your mouth against the common consensus. Anyone who pretends otherwise has read too little history. Is this case egregious? Maybe, but we've seen lots worse.

        The man is almost certainly a jerk; most major league sports team owners are.

        1. Yeah, and I don't know if it has been brought up but he has a history including discriminating against minorities with his housing industry. I don't think the law should dictate who he gets to rent or sell to,but if he ends up paying for his behavior like he is now, it's no skin off my nose. You reap what you sow.

        2. You mean like the Hollywood Ten blacklist?

          Funny, we keep being assured McCarthyism was the Worst Thing Ever. I guess Communism is still more popular than racism.

      4. If you don't want to live in such a world, what world do you want to live in? A world in which government vets you for whether you are a racist or not and then gives your employer permission to fire you or not? Because that's the alternative to just letting your employer/business partners/whatever decide for themselves.

    4. Wait until a black player, coach, or GM says something offensive to gays or anti-Semitic or bigoted to some non-Black minority group. Everybody will be right to call for a lifetime ban, because precedent.

      1. My thoughts exactly.

      2. Happens thousands of times every week. Literally thousands. But the grievance industry doesn't target the Right Kind of People.

    5. He actually gave like $20M to "minority causes" which means "lined the pockets of the grievance industry rentseekers." That's why he was up for his second NAACP lifetime award.

      The money, of course, is what this is about, not whether some philandering rich white guy can tell his multiracial sex toy to stop being seen with so many black people.

    6. This was a set up and it smells to high heaven.

  2. Um, does the NBA have a legal framework to strip an owner of his or her team?

    I think Sterling is a POS and has tarnished the NBA; I'm just wondering how a league commissioner (ostensibly an employee of the owners) can essentially fire an owner?

    1. There's undoubtedly a morals clause in the agreement between him and the league. Whether this enforcement action is kosher within the terms of the agreement is another question, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have something like this.

      If you're rich, you need to be exceedingly rich to dabble in sports, because you can lose your shirt if the value of the team and your total net worth are comparable.

    2. Without having read anything about the punishment other than what was written in this comment section, my guess is that the team is still his, but that the NBA has banned him from appearing at any NBA-licensed events.

      1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/nba-d.....d=23513899

        The NBA announced today that it has banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life and fined him $2.5 million, the maximum amount, after he was recorded making racist comments.

        "Effective immediately, I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA," said NBA Commissioner Adam Silver during a news conference in New York.

        Silver also said he would immediately recommend to the NBA Board of Governors that they force a sale of the Clippers and that he would do "everything in [his] power to ensure that happens."

        1. OK, I stand corrected. But I assume they think they have legal grounds for this. Otherwise I assume Sterling will sue.

    3. Franchise contract. Burger King could probably strip your franchise if you were enough of a liability to their brand.

    4. How exactly has the NBA been tarnished? It's not like this was a conversation between a bunch of owners saying racist shit about their players.

  3. Also, fried chicken.

    1. I like fried chicken. Soaked in buttermilk. Dusted with secret herbs and spices Lightly breaded. Fried in a cast iron skillet until golden brown and delicious. Sipping a whisky and water while waiting for the chicken to finish.

      Excuse me, I must go. Got some cookin' to do.

      1. I'd like mine served on top of a nice crispy waffle please.

      2. I do the buttermilk soak too. With a little white wine and honey added!

  4. Increasing the KULTUR WARFARE is not going to be good for anyone. Sterling may be an asshole, but that's between him and the people that have to deal with him. When you start making being an asshole something that can destroy your livelihood, you don't get less assholes (leopards don't just change their spots); you get assholes who hide it better or defend their livelihood that much more viciously.

    There are all kinds of people. Some of them are douchebags. You should be free to be a douchebag, and can deal with the repercussions among the people you associate with. You shouldn't have to deal with millions of others who don't actually know you.

    1. What? You are not enraged by his racism? DESTROY EPISIARCH. BAN HIM. ESCHEW HIM. [Runs screaming into the streets, destroying things at random due to outrage.]

      1. I lived in the deep south in the 60's when they still lynched black guys on occasion.

        I really can't get too worked up when rich guy tells his kept women not to consort with black guys in public {it's OK to fuck them in private, just be discrete}.

        1. If I paid what he does to have a kept woman, she's better save her fucking for ME!

        2. Most expensive fucktoy EVER.

      2. Honestly, TEAM OUTRAGE (which spans all kinds of outrage, from Sandy Hook to this) is gorging at the tit at this point. The perpetually outraged are completely addicted to this, and they're just getting worse. They feed each other through social media and the internet, and each successful outrage binge just makes them want more. It's fucking repulsive. And I can't see it getting anything other than more and more extreme as they ramp up their addiction.

        Hey, maybe they'll get outraged that the NSA spies on us! Ha, who am I kidding. They only get outraged at people they can make pay, because that's what they really want.

        1. Seriously, why get all riled up over something that doesn't affect you or really anyone? He's a racist, fine, but his coach is a black guy and most of his team is black. So no one seems to be not employed or anything like that. If the NBA feels this is a morals clause violation and wants to boot him, that's their right (most likely), but why do I care? Just another asshole in a country chock-full of them.

          I'm with you--the outrage should be over the huge abuses we're enduring every minute of every day. Heck, right now, a story is breaking about an apparent smoking gun e-mail or two in connection to Benghazi. Where's the outrage over that?

          1. People who like to get outraged are the same as the gossips of old. They get off on other people's dysfunctions, problems, and scandals. It makes them feel better about themselves. And like every shitty, disgusting human impulse, when these people can get together and reinforce each other (via the internet now), it just gets far worse.

            1. I need to rewatch Bewitched to understand this better.

              1. You're asking an apparent psychopath to diagnose other people's emotional problems.

                Curious, what was Epi's reaction to Sandy Hook, if not outrage? Giggles?

                1. I don't think Bewitched will help. Try Mr. Ed. WILBUR

                  1. I was thinking Gladys Kravitz for outrage. And Endora for the appropriate response.

                2. How about: sadness, empathy for those who lost loved ones, an overwhelming desire to send money and prayers to help those affected? You know things that might actually be useful, rather than an outrage fueled orgy of counter productive laws. Just a thought...sorry, you don't have those very often, do you?

                  1. I felt all those things you did minus the prayer thing and minus the NRA-approved political memes (a gun in every kindergartner's lunchbag!). But outrage is an appropriate feeling when a bunch of children get shot up; do you not think so? Those of us who believe guns should be more restricted had, after all, just been proven fucking right in the most terrible way imaginable.

                    But I suppose outrage is best reserved for people other than Epi with opinions on things.

                    1. "Those of us who believe guns should be more restricted had, after all, just been proven fucking right in the most terrible way imaginable."

                      "Proven" - Really? I do not think that word means what you think it means. And, yes, I was outraged - at the killer, not at people who had nothing to do with the crime.

                    2. Those of us who believe guns should be more restricted had, after all, just been proven fucking right in the most terrible way imaginable.

                      The only thing Sandy Hook proved is that there's no pile of corpses shitlibs won't climb on to rub their control-freak fetish when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

                    3. People advocating for maximum access to guns have blood on their hands every time someone is shot with a gun, because that faction has been winning.

                      I support restrictions because they are machines specifically designed to tear apart human tissue. I also support restrictions on the availability of arsenic. But you're less concerned about that because it's not quite as convenient a way to kill people--the reason I'm for gun restrictions is the same reason you guys are against them, let's make sure that's clear (they're efficient killing machines).

                    4. "I support restrictions because they are machines specifically designed to tear apart human tissue."

                      citation needed.

                    5. People advocating for maximum access to guns have blood on their hands every time someone is shot with a gun, because that faction has been winning.

                      By that logic, people advocating for maximum access to alcohol have blood on their hands every time someone dies in a drunk driving accident or is killed by a drunken spouse.

                      But you're less concerned about that because increasing alcohol restrictions would actually affect a part of your lifestyle.

                    6. Cars kill more people than guns. Care to lay out the plan to lower access to cars? After all, cars are easy, not mentioned in our Constitution at all.

                      But hey, they great thing is you are allowed to feel whatever you want!

                      Unless, you feel like your girl friend should not fuck black guys and then be seen them in public. That feeling would be huge issue.

                    7. Actually, quite a bit of legislation and public policy has been directed toward vehicle and driver safety over the past 40 years, with a significant drop in the number of fatalities as a result. I think you need a better example since this one proves the opposite point you're trying to make.

                    8. "People advocating for maximum access to guns have blood on their hands every time someone is shot with a gun, because that faction has been winning."

                      You got that backwards, silly bigoted twat.

                      By the way, which one of your gun laws would have prevented Sandy Hook? Of course, rational folks understand that none of your proposed gun control laws would have prevented Sandy Hook.

                      I know gun laws help your feeeeelings but the rest of us living in the real world recognize that an efficient means of self-defense is a good thing.

                      In closing, I'd just like to say: fuck off slaver.

                    9. The only person that has blood on their hands is the deranged asshole who kills people.

                      Well and you, if you ever got your sociopathic way.

          2. They only people who should care about this are people that know and work for Sterling. If I am Doc Rivers and have a white wife and hear my boss saying he doesn't like it when his girlfriend to be seen in public with black men, I am probably rightfully pissed off and very well may find a new owner to work for this summer.

            Why the rest of use should give a shit is beyond me. Of course, the NBA just banned the guy for life and finned him millions but that won't stop various idiots from continuing to lecture us on how racist the NBA actually is.

            1. I can see why some NBA fans, particularly black fans, would not want to go to Clipper games or support them as long as he is the owner. I do agree with you on the last sentence. At the end of the day, the NBA is protecting their interests here, and it is in their best interests to not have Donald Sterling as an owner.

              1. Sure they can. But most people are not Clippers fans. So why should fans of other teams care?

                This whole thing should have been a local story in LA. No one outside of LA has any interest in this.

                1. Clipper fans don't exist

                  /sarc (kinda, like 90% of the ones now are bandwagoners)

                  I don't agree with the second paragraph, just cause is clearly a big story for the NBA, which means it was going to make national sports news. I do agree that it shouldn't be getting as much attention from non-sports media as it has.

            2. And Elgin Baylor worked for him for 22 years and then sued him for not paying him enough because he's black.

              It took him 22 years to figure it out though.

          3. "Where's the outrage over that?"

            There's been plenty... 100% of it manufactured by right-wing bullshit artists.

            1. I don't even know what you're talking about but I guarantee that you're wrong.

          4. Fake scandal.


  5. Oh, I suspect that this rich dumb franchise owner will survive - unless he fritters the money away on mistresses.

    Meanwhile, as Mr. Jacket says, there's serious problems facing the black community. But I wouldn't say it's racist, because some of these problems are caused by bad actors who are themselves black. The black school officials and teachers defending their turf against school choice, to black community activists demanding long drug sentences, aren't white supremacists, but they're still wrong.

    And is there some verification of that Anslinger quote? The NAACP *was* around at the time - wouldn't there be a record of their protesting such a statement?

    1. The black school officials and teachers defending their turf against school choice

      Government jobs have been a key element of the black middle class. So even if they suspect that smaller government and school choice might work, they'll oppose it because those government jobs go away.

      1. Government jobs have been a key element of the black middle class.

        Libertarians are objectively racist. /prog

  6. Nobody is going to any of those three things, Nick. They're too hard, and two of them specifically are counter to THE TRUTH, which is only held by the Left and no others.

    Reflexive social media outrage. That's the new hotness. It's easy, too.

  7. Well said Nick!

  8. race relations are so bad in america, and media is so disingenuous when covering race stories, that white ppl cannot discuss it at any depth without being labeled a racist.

    wise white ppl simply refuse to discuss it in mixed company.

    to holder that makes them cowards.

    if you look at the real meaning behind these 2 persons words, its less racism than it is social commentary. i constantly see stories on huffpo claiming sterling told her to not bring blacks to the game. thats 'paraphrasing' out the depth.

    that's like paraphrasing "Make a point about drug deals" to 'make drug deals'. One is a topic of abstract meaning, one is a call to action. they'are not just unequivalent/nonanalagous, they are totally different animals.

    he never said 'don't bring blacks to games'. what he said was don't go out of your way to make me a public cuckold.

    1. He actually did. Seriously, you can critique the social response to the comments all you want, but there is no reasonable way to paint Sterling or Bundy's comments as somehow not racist.

      1. Yeah, we get it. Your life mission is to make sure everyone is "reasonable" about what to call racism, like you. Aren't you getting tired of typing the same shit?

        1. Go fuck yourself CIYP. If you have a problem with my take, either dispute it, ignore it, or don't read it in the first place. I don't have a "life mission," I'm here to talk to people on an online discussion board, and that's what's going on.

      2. And don't forget to come back 7 or 8 hours from now to make sure your "reasonable" response gets no reply

      3. Since neither was making racist comments, of course you can.

        Just because the lens of racism is so tightly screwed into your eye that it's damaged your brain doesn't mean the rest of us have to abide by your insanity.

        Bundy made a very common speculation--one that countless black pundits have waxed eloquent upon--he just made that speculation bluntly.

        And Ann nailed what Sterling did.

        Tip--saying 'black guys' and 'negro' is not automatically racist.

        1. Yeah, there's nothing racist about telling someone to not bring black people to games, or to post pictures with them on Instagram. And there's nothing racist about generalizing black people as lazy welfare bums who don't work, abort their children, and go to prison, while implying that they were better off under slavery because "at least they learned to pick cotton."

          1. At some point you will hopefully start to recognize the hand of your own biases infused into the words of other people which permeates all of your posts on this topic.

    2. He said "don't bring blacks to games."

  9. I guess Reason didn't bother to read Cliven Bundy's full remarks?


    Not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be.

    1. Yeah, that's still bad.

      1. Regardless, I have yet to figure out why Bundy being a racist has any bearing on his dispute with the BLM. Do the people who think that statement is relevant think it is okay for the BLM to steal land so long as it only does it from racists? Or if they are on the other side, do they think the BLM should assert its claims and collect rents it is lawfully owed only if the person they are collecting from is a bad guy?

        The whole thing is nothing but a giant distraction the media created for the specific purpose of changing the subject away from the substance of the dispute and all of the various uncomfortable fact surrounding Harry Reid's involvement. It is classic "hey look over there" bullshit the media does constantly.

        1. I agree with you on that - Bundy being racist has no impact on whether he is right or wrong in his dispute with the BLM, something that people on both sides are losing sight of.

          1. Right, because he's wrong on it too. He's stealing from us, the rat fink, and has been fighting the US government and the Nevada State Constitution and losing.

            Racism is just the whip cream on the nutball sundae that Bundy offers liberty lovers everywhere

        2. Because being a racist means everyone who has a thought similar to yours is now fair game.

          1. On the Bundy comments - why didn't the NYT mention that he specifically states that today is progress for blacks, and he has no desire to go back?

            What sort of racist basically argues for amnesty for illegals, and praises Hispanics (I believe he said Mexican) as having a better family structure than most whites?

            I don't see his comments as racist. If he had said what the NYT quoted him with, and left it at that, yes. Based on the full quotes, NO. He's just an old rancher who phrased part of what he said poorly.

        3. The racist rant was just an incredibly convenient red herring. That's why HuffPo at times had 4 different stories on its front page calling Bundy a racist.

    2. Um, that's pretty bad, sparky.

      1. I really dont see how its even in the same ball park as Sterling.

        1. The tone is less pernicious, but the "are they really better off than they were under slavery?" is pretty bad. It doesn't have to be as bad as Sterling to be racist.

          1. "are they really better off than they were under slavery?"


            I am pretty sure the answer is no...but the fact remains Blacks in the US still are slaves. Though admittedly a softer slavery then the one practiced before the civil war.

            The unedited version of his interview pretty much says exactly this.

            Hard to call someone a racist when they are acknowledging that the state is racist...You may as well be calling reason TV racist for doing exactly the same thing with the above video.

            1. "Huh?"

              Did you forget the part where he says that?

              "I am pretty sure the answer is no...but the fact remains Blacks in the US still are slaves. Though admittedly a softer slavery then the one practiced before the civil war."

              All of them? Unless you're claiming that everyone in the U.S. is a slave, you're engaging in the same sort of stereotyping and generalizing that Bundy did. Not all black people are on welfare. And as much as the system sucks, there's no comparison between that and chattel slavery. Pick a different word. It's a stupid comparison.

          2. Is it racist because of the association he draws between black welfare recipients and black slaves? Because, ironically, that is largely the justification liberals give for why they need welfare. You know, "legacy of slavery" and all that.

            It's probably racist, I don't know. I can't keep track anymore of what is or isn't, so I don't even try. I just think it's interesting that the media apparently thinks that the same logic can be racist or not racist based on whether the person is using it in support of big government

            1. It's not merely an association. He implies that he seriously thinks "the Negro" might have been better off under slavery, when he at least "learned to pick cotton."

              I've seen the left use the "legacy of slavery" argument regarding affirmative action, or reparations, but I've never really seen that as their argument for general welfare programs. It's not like they oppose it for whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

              1. Saying "I often wondered whether the French weren't better off under the monarchy than under Napoleon" doesn't make someone a monarchist, it's a condemnation of Napoleon.

                Bundy was accusing Democrats and progressives of behaving similar to the slave holders a couple of centuries ago. That's hardly a stretch given the long and extensive history of racism and racial paternalism among Democrats and progressives.

          3. Yeah, that was really stupid. Are they better off than they were before the Great Society, welfare, etc.? That is a legitimate question. But asking if they were better off when other people could legally claim ownership of them? That's just ridiculous.

          4. Precisely--pointing out what appears to him to be obvious misery and questioning whether this misery outweighs another--heartless racism.

            Except when black pundits do it, right?

  10. At a combined 140 years old, Bundy and Sterling are survivors from an older, uglier America that died well before the election of Barack Obama

    Still trying to say that Obama's election eliminated racism then eh Gillespie?

    They can (and should) go fuck themselves

    Is there going to be an article about how on second thought the BLM are the good guys now?

    1. Are there any articles from Reason about Ruby Ridge saying that "Randy Weaver is a racist who should go fuck himself"?

    2. You may be more obnoxious than Tony.

  11. On the Bundy comments - why didn't the NYT mention that he specifically states that today is progress for blacks, and he has no desire to go back?

    What sort of racist basically argues for amnesty for illegals, and praises Hispanics (I believe he said Mexican) as having a better family structure than most whites?

    I don't see his comments as racist. If he had said what the NYT quoted him with, and left it at that, yes. Based on the full quotes, NO. He's just an old rancher who phrased part of what he said poorly.

    1. Thanks, I was hoping someone else would stand up for Mr. Bundy. He may not be the most articulate person in the world, but he's no racist.

  12. Hey Reason eds: the Village Voice called you out! Tucille and Sullum (or Walker). In their Right Wing Blogosphere section.

    The article was on right wingers who backed Bundy and then backtracked after his Negro philosophyin'.

    It was pretty funny ... look it up.

  13. Gee, I don't know why I thought Reason would

    A) Support Bundy as an individual standing up to oppressive state power, used to unilaterally renegotiate decades-old establish practice and land use agreements and using the power to regulate as the power to destroy. Sad that in this battle between the real producer (Bundy) and the real moochers (BLM), Reason came down on the side of the moochers.

    B) Take the time to really listen to Bundy's supposedly "racist" comments, which were nothing of the kind, instead of falling completely for the leftist framing.

    For shame, Gillespie and Bragg

  14. 3 Reason Contributors That Are More Predictable Right-Wing Shills Than Nick Gillespie: David Harsanyi, Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel.

    1. 1 Reason Commenter that thinks it's okay to murder tens of millions of people if they have a different political philosophy: american socialist

  15. "They can (and should) go fuck themselves..." = Reason's participation in the two-minute hate?

    Otherwise, licensing laws for hair braiding??

  16. Just make Sterling do some hair braiding in Oakland.

  17. Whenever the racism pot needs stirring we can count on Al Sharpton (now leaner, sleeker... more streamlined) to pop up and, somehow, we manage to forget about Tawanna Brawley. Isn't that a little like OJ commenting on a murder trial? Or am I just being racist?

  18. Don't tell Nick, but you can't really fuck yourself.

    1. That's what you think 😉

  19. You know what was more racist? American Slavery. Completely a product of the 'free market'' it took the Civil War and over a century of Federal legislation to try to reverse it.

    1. A market that imposses coercive force on another person is not a free market. Slavery is, by it's very definition, a slave market. You disingenuous twit.

      1. Please excuse the poor grammar and punctuation errors. It's 5am in my neck of the woods and I've been losing sleep all night lamenting the loss of the good ol' days when coloreds knew their place. :/

      2. Not trying to be disingenuous. Just trying to understand the Libertarian view on racism and slavery. Would institutional slavery still exist in America if it hadn't been eliminated by 'Big Government' and the 13th amendment?

        1. Oh, dear lord, here come the Tom Woods's fans. Without the evil war, Heather, slavery would have just died out on its own.

          The fact that this point hasn't been debunked a million times over won't stop some "liberty" fan from making it

        2. No, it wouldn't exist. You've watched the Confedrate States of America one too many times. As far as racism goes, we believe everyone has the right to be an ignorant asshole, as long as you don't use those beliefs as a tool to impose force on those you hate. We also believe in publicly shaming said asshole. As for your question about slavery, if you're not being disingenuous and honestly asking that question, then there is truly no hope for you. Are veiws on slavery?!!! Jesus titty fucking Christ!!!

  20. So essentially wanting to use young black men as subminimum wage laborers is the non-racist position to Nick and Meredith? The landowners who exploited sharecropping must have been the original civil rights activists

  21. Ugly and wile are something we're pretty much forced to live with, as hip-hop and similar garbage is blaring at us everywhere. So the old,rich white man's PRIVATE and energetically provoked remarks may be called ugly, but, as a linguist of some 3 decades of teaching experience, I fail to locate anything racist in the purloined dialogue. He state some un-PC facts, such as "I give them money etc..." Compared to the Hymie-town remarks of Jackson, or the Uncle Tom-ming uttered so frequently nowadays, this is small stuff. As a "private Black club," the NBA may do anything it wishes, but let's not waste laurels on them for this low and cheap act of "heroism."

  22. Mr. Gillespie is apparently relying on the NY Times' excerpted version of Mr. Bundy's talk. In the full version, he agrees with you, even if he doesn't use words the way that you seem to want him to. You should check your sources lest you considered guilty of being PC.
    Mr. Sterling is an asshole, from his business dealings (and not just the Clippers or his rentals) to his marriage. His trollop provided ammunition to people who already didn't like him to shoot him down. It's a free country and the NBA owners (among so many others) wanted an excuse to be shed of him.
    And you wonder why I can't be bothered to watch "The Independents?"

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.